International Election Observation Mission Preliminary Findings and Conclusions

International Election Observation Mission issued its Preliminary Findings and Conclusions on the October 26 Parliamentary elections, saying that elections “unfolded amid entrenched polarization in an environment marred by concerns over recently adopted legislation, its impact on fundamental freedoms and civil society.” While “contestants could generally campaign freely “reports of pressure on voters, particularly on public sector employees, remained widespread in the campaign.” The report says that this coupled with extensive tracking of voters on election day, “raised concerns about the ability of some voters to cast their vote without fear of retribution.”

The IEOM consists of the observers from the OSCE/ODIHR, The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), the European Parliament (EP) and NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA).

The document also says that while the legal framework provides an adequate basis for democratic elections,  “recent frequent amendments marked a step backwards, raising concerns over its potential use for political gain.”

IEOM notes that “A significant imbalance in financial resources and advantage of incumbency contributed to an already uneven playing field.” The report goes on to say that the polarized media environment and the instrumentalization of private outlets for political propaganda undermined impartial news coverage and hindered voters’ ability to make an informed choice.

IEOM notes that the effectiveness of campaign finance oversight was undermined by limited enforcement, and concerns over the impartiality and political instrumentalization of the oversight body.

Election day was generally procedurally well-organized “but marked by a tense environment, with frequent compromises in vote secrecy and several procedural inconsistencies, as well as reports of intimidation and pressure on voters that negatively impacted public trust in the process.”

The report says that “frequent revisions of the legal framework, over 20 times since 2020, including some made shortly before the elections and without broad cross-party support, undermined its stability and raised concerns about the potential for misusing the changes for political gain…”

It is also notes the issue of the public perception of the impartiality of election administration, saying it was negatively impacted by concerns about recent amendments, which “vest control over the selection and nomination process of the CEC to the ruling party, the cancellation of the opposition-nominated deputy chairperson position, its decision-making process, as well as perceived links between non-partisan members and the ruling party.”

While noting that while the introduction of the electronic devices was supported by most stakeholders, the report says that “key stakeholders were not provided access to the audit processes and had limited access to related documentation, limiting transparency, at odds with international good practice.”

The report further reads: “Most IEOM interlocutors did not raise significant concerns about the accuracy or inclusiveness of the voter lists, but some questioned the legitimacy of a number of multiple registrations at the same addresses of voters unknown to the actual residents.”

The campaign was competitive but subdued, and contestants could generally campaign freely, EIOM says “but reports of intimidation, coercion and pressure on voters persisted.”

The report details the changes in Georgian legislation that have undermined the level playing field and increased the advantage of the ruling party over its competitors, including financial advantage and notes that the application of legislation by the newly established Anti-Corruption Directorate has been selective and lacks transparency.

The report speaks of the highly polarized media, and notes that safety of journalists remains a major concern, with recent reports of recent assaults, acts of intimidation and pressure.

The effectiveness of dispute resolution, the reports says, remained limited “due to restrictions on voters’ legal standing, procedural shortcomings, ambiguities in the legislation and inconsistencies in its application.” IEOM notes that “before election day, some 220 complaints were filed with election commissions regarding the appointment and operation of Precinct Election Commissions (PECs), alleged misuse of administrative resources, and campaign violations.”

It further notes that “most decisions were made by election commission chairpersons rather than the full commissions, undermining collegiality and reducing transparency, contrary to prior ODIHR recommendations”. The report further notes that “Many complaints were dismissed as unsubstantiated, often without adequate investigation of the merits.”

The report says that  “the trust in the law-enforcement, the election administration and the judiciary to effectively and impartially adjudicate politically sensitive matters remains low.”

As for the election day itself, IEOM says that it was generally “procedurally well-organized and administered in an orderly manner but marked by a tense environment and several incidents of physical altercations and widespread intimidation of voters, as well as citizen observers.”

The report says that vote secrecy was potentially compromised in 24 per cent of observations, due to the manner of ballot insertion into VCDs or inadequate polling station layout.

Furthermore, IEOM observers frequently reported indications of pressure on voters and overcrowding, and procedural inconsistencies, as well as potential intimidation through tracking of the voters.  

In many cases, party representatives recorded the voting process and tracked voters, raising concerns about potential intimidation.

The Mission says that “While the presence of citizen and party observers contributed to transparency, many citizen observers appeared to act on behalf of contestants.” Also “during counting, procedural omissions included the improper handling of unused ballots, not announcing votes aloud and the IEOM noted inconsistencies in the determination of the validity of ballots.” Finally, “tabulation was positively assessed, but the completeness and accuracy of results protocols were not consistently checked, with DECs citing that official results are finalized at the national level.”

The IEOM consists of the observers from the OSCE/ODIHR, The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), the European Parliament (EP) and NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA).

Follow our Election Live Blog for more updates on the October 26, 2024, parliamentary elections.

This post is also available in: ქართული (Georgian) Русский (Russian)